Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 16, 2011 8:02am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

Ah. Well, I watched the male bathroom etiquette thing: nine minutes of my life that I won't get back.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jan 16, 2011 8:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

Well 9 min down, why not waste another 1.5 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQqIQyT-RuM&;playnext=1&list=PLE079E2C105F96C03&index=72

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DeadRed1971 Date: Jan 16, 2011 7:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

Well at least least it was a request for a kiss, and not penis offerings ala Brett Favre via cell phone or Mark Gastineau in the locker room. The reporter said to Gastineau: "looks like a penis, only smaller." Must have been the steroids.

Don't forget Zeke Mowatt with the Pats years ago wagging his member-ship in the presence of a female reporter. I believe Victor Kiam; former Pats and Remington shavers owner, said "I've seen Zeke Mowatt's penis. In fact I liked it so much I bought the company."

This post was modified by DeadRed1971 on 2011-01-17 03:27:53

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jan 16, 2011 7:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

True, but it was on national TV and you gotta love the way he checked out Suzie's booty before telling the world what his intentions were.

Besides, football players are little leaguers when it comes to this. The NBA is where the real action is.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: oneprowierdo Date: Jan 16, 2011 11:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

that was a flashback I forgot all about joe hitting on suzy He was hammered!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jan 16, 2011 7:15pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

I'm sure there's a moral here somewhere, in the juxtaposition of these two scenes ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jan 16, 2011 7:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

not sure about a moral but the juxtaposition is very familiar to me (start dream sequence squiggly lines. Ring will be playing the part of pretty much every living female except the one silly enough to actually marry me).

Ring: "I am sure there is a moral here"

LBo: "I don't care about a moral Ring, I just wanna kiss you"

Ring: "blaaaaggghhhhh"

SDH: " WTF another pair of shoes ruined!! LBo please stop doing that!!"

(squiggly lines)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 17, 2011 5:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

Hey!? I thought I am the only one that gets to write stuff like that?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jan 17, 2011 2:12pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

was it that bad?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 17, 2011 2:52pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

Touche!

Good one; hmmm, it looks like nobody cares about "it" these days, ya know? I must have done so much of "it", no one even notices.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Jan 17, 2011 2:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

i don't think anyone ever cared. I think one putz wrote a bullshit post. I think everyone here gets it and wouldn't worry about it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 16, 2011 7:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

Did you see "we" did it! J and I really have to bottle this!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 16, 2011 2:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

Sorry, kid! It's really as simple as JOTS and I, as Raiders fans from way back, hate the Pats, and Dire/SDH love them...a few yrs back, JOTS and I literally "willed" the Pats to lose a playoff game by both sitting at our computers while watching the game, simultaneously posting HERE and wishing, and hoping, and posting...and thus GROK'd the Pats to a loss (this assumes you recall discussions of Forumites getting together in the "ether" to GROK shows, etc., etc., etc.; we of course used this "power" for "good"...well, Dire called it "evil", but he's biased, right?).

You love the Steelers though I suppose? Damn...

BTW, here's the thread where J & I "did it" to the PATS:

http://www.archive.org/post/96620/upset-sunday

This post was modified by William Tell on 2011-01-16 22:46:05

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 17, 2011 3:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

haha! Yes being a lifetime Raider fan the Patriots became my enemy number one since that horrible tuck rule robbed my Raiders from the Superbowl. You know the rule that is almost never called and everyone knows SUCKS! Still of course hate the Bronco's and somehow have gotten over the immaculant reception ( which was NOT legal then, yet another Raiders super bowl robbed from them ). Of course I don't want Pittsburgh to win another. No one should win that much unless it's my team

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DeadRed1971 Date: Jan 17, 2011 4:50pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

JOTS, the Immaculate Reception was by Franco Harris of the Steelers.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 17, 2011 5:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

I know. I was saying I've gotten over my Steeler hatred due to that.We won three superbowla aince then while the tuck rule is much more fresh. BUT that SHOULD have been a dead ball by rule in those days. Replay proves it. But the raiders have their share of shit they got away with too so nobody needs to go bringing that up : )

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 17, 2011 8:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: JOTS (nonDEAD): why we need 1969!

I haven't!

Nor the tuck!

Suck, I should say.

Ah, if only my old man were alive; this would probably get him riled up enough to come to our website and join the "good fight" with us, J!

Cool.